Timeline for How can we resolve the current drama without causing any more harm to vulnerable groups?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18, 2019 at 14:12 | comment | added | Marco13 | @PoorYorick I think that when a policy (that demands a certain way of speech) is justified by arguing that refusing to do so is tantamount to "denying 'respect'", it is important to know what "respect" should mean. Roughly (!) : It can only be used as a justification when "respect" is an undeniable human right. But that contradicts e.g. common (dictionary-) definitions of "respect" as a "high or special regard". But I agree with you and Skliwz: I wanted to bring this up, but we probably cannot sensibly sort this out here anyways (due to my mother tongue, the limited space in comments, etc.). | |
| Oct 18, 2019 at 8:22 | comment | added | Sklivvz Mod | @PoorYorick you are not rude, but this conversation is not worth having. | |
| Oct 18, 2019 at 0:52 | comment | added | PoorYorick | @Sklivvz I did not treat you unkindly, I was telling you facts about your mother tongue. If you look up the definition of rispetto, you will see two definitions. Only one of them fits the idea of respect that has to be earned. The other is that of respect that you pay others regardless of their achievements. | |
| Oct 18, 2019 at 0:41 | comment | added | PoorYorick | @Marco13 This is the kind of reductive response I really don't understand. Where did I say semantics are meaningless? I'm a big fan of semantics, but I prefer to use them as a tool to understand meaning, not to define it or to obscure it. Anyway, we're making a big discussion out of a small comment; I've said my piece, let's leave it at that. Like I said I largely agree with your answer. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 23:37 | comment | added | Marco13 | @PoorYorick Again, I'm not in the position of arguing about a specific language or culture. But when you call something a "semantic argument", and at the same time call it "meaningless", then I have to object (not specifically, but generally) : Semantics matter, and they matter a lot. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 18:28 | comment | added | Sklivvz Mod | Thanks for teaching me my mother tongue. At this point, I have better things to do than being treated like this. Adios. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 18:09 | comment | added | PoorYorick | @Sklivvz, and this has nothing to do with Angloamerican culture. In every Western language with the word "respect", you have the same double meaning. One meaning is always to respect someone for something specific they did or for who they are, which is something you need to earn. The other meaning is always "show respect to others", which means to be decent. You find that in French, Spanish, Italian, and German, all of which have a more direct culture than the US, and of course you'll also find it in the UK which has also a more direct culture even though it uses the same language. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 17:55 | comment | added | PoorYorick | @Sklivvz and Marco13, I don't want to argue about English making sense or not, I argue that a semantic argument about respect using a very narrow definition of respect that is not used by most English speakers is meaningless. Basically, you say "respect is something that you earn", and that is as a whole simply not correct. When people say "be respectful when talking to others", that is a different meaning of the word respect. It is specifically not the one that is earned, but the one you give in advance. You may call it "decency", but most English speakers will call it "respect". | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:17 | comment | added | Marco13 | @PoorYorick I'm not a native English speaker, but if "baseline respect" is basically "decency", then why not call it "decency"? (Beyond that, I'd hesitate to argue about these nuances of a (foreign) language ;-)). The main point was that initially, everybody can and should be treated equally here, and refusing to use a certain form of speech can have many reasons which do not imply a "lack of respect" (or "disrespecting/invalidating an identity", as it is also often phrased). Of course, transphobia also is a reason, but assuming that it "always" is the reason is affirming the consequent. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 8:37 | comment | added | Sklivvz Mod | @PoorYorick I think this is one of those things where the English language is simply broken. A can respect B, A disrespect B, or A can be neutral towards B. I think what you call "basic respect" is simply being neutral. No disrespect, no true respect, just basic civility. Unfortunately, Angloamerican culture is indirect and so telling it as it is, is considered rude. In direct cultures, what Marco has said sounds pretty self-evident. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 7:22 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | +100 Well said. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 3:41 | comment | added | PoorYorick | What you are talking about here when you say "respect is a feeling" is the additional respect that you feel towards people who you actually admire. You are right that nobody can force you to admire someone else. But people can expect you to show some basic respect towards them. The one that does not originate from your own feelings but from your assumption that the other person is a decent human being. This is an important aspect of living in a society, and you miss it by conflating these two different forms of respect. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 3:35 | comment | added | PoorYorick | I like your answer, and I think you're largely right. Up to the point where you start talking about respect. There I disagree. Respect is not only something you earn, it's also something you give in advance. The other person then has to earn it by their actions, otherwise they lose your respect. Basically, there's a "baseline respect" for being a decent human being, which should be the initial assumption when meeting someone. | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 21:39 | comment | added | divibisan | @Marco13 I see. I think this drama has made all of us anxious and on edge and drained all our reservoirs of good will. But you’re right, it’s not really something we can discuss in comments. For what it’s worth, I think you did a good job presenting your argument neutrally and reasonably, in a time where many choose not to. | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 21:31 | comment | added | Marco13 | @divibisan I wanted to avoid this, because I'm not sure whether I can phrase it properly (in a comment - not an English speaker:) There was nothing hateful in the Q. There was no accusation of the Q being hateful in the A. But still, the A seemed to be perceived as such an accusation. And I wondered why. I understand it (better than I'd like to...) from a real-life perspective, where I'm notoriously anxious and really easily irritated (so "anxious" explains a lot). But I tried hard to phrase my A neutrally and carefully in this regard, and wonder where the assumption came from. | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 21:24 | comment | added | divibisan | @Marco13 No, that’s clear. I should have said that in my comment. I was just commenting on "I'm tempted to ask why you thought it did”, which just seemed strange, since were answering their question. | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 21:22 | comment | added | Marco13 | @divibisan I didn't find anything in the Q that could even remotely be considered as being hateful, and hope this is clarified now. In the A, I tired to address the broader topic of conflict resolution and avoiding harm: There will be "harm" (as in ~"bad feelings"), but in order to even have a discussion about the conflict (and its causes, and possible solutions) one has to avoid a situation where the discussion is 'the conflict'. This requires tolerance, accepting vastly different viewpoints, careful wording, and avoiding certain accusations of which we have seen so many recently. | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 21:09 | comment | added | divibisan | @Marco13 It’s not unreasonable to assume that when someone writes an answer to someone’s question that that answer is aimed at them. | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 20:31 | history | answered | Marco13 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |